Delhi District Court
State vs : Anil Kumar Goel & Anr. on 21 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK, ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01 : CENTRAL DISTRICT :
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
State Vs : Anil Kumar Goel & Anr.
FIR No. : 662/1997
U/s : 420/467/468/471/34 IPC
PS : Karol Bagh
Date of Institution : 07.02.1998
Date of Judgment reserved on : 13.04.2015
Date of Judgment : 21.04.2015
Unique ID : 02401R0074592005
Brief details of the case
A. Sl. No. of the case : 6/CR
B. Offence complained of : U/s 420/471/120B IPC
or proved
C. Date of Offence : 23.10.1997
D. Name of complainant : Sh. J.S.Kohli
M/s Sethi Bros. Pvt. Ltd.
Foreign Exchange Division,
6/79 (M Floor), WEA,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-05
E. Name of accused : (1) Anil Kumar Goel
S/o Jai Narain Goel
R/o Mandi Motiganj,
PS Kotwali, City Mainpuri,
Uttar Pradesh
(2) Anil Kumar Sharma
S/o Jagdish Prasad
R/o S-196, Pandav Nagar,
PS Kalyan Puri, Delhi
F. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
G. Final order : (a) Accused Anil Kumar Sharma
stands acquitted
(b) Accused Anil Kumar Goel
stands convicted under Section
420/471 IPC
H. Date of Order : 21.04.2015
FIR No.662/1997 State Vs Anil Kumar Goel & Anr. Page 1 of 21
Judgment
On the accusation of entering into a criminal conspiracy with the
common object of cheating a travel agency to obtain air-ticket and traveler' s
cheque on the basis of forged banker cheques, accused Anil Kumar Goel and Anil
Sharma were sent up to face trial for committing offences punishable under Section
420/471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC.
Brief facts as disclosed in the charge sheet.
2. M/s Sethi Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ' company' )
was a travel agency having office at Premises No.6/79, Karol Bagh, New Delhi.
The company was in the business of selling air tickets and under a license from
Reserve Bank of India (RBI), it was also authorized to issue foreign currency to the
travelers going abroad. Accused Anil Kumar Sharma was employed as Sales
Executive with this company. It is the case of prosecution that in order to cheat his
company, accused Anil Kumar Sharma hatched a conspiracy with co-accused Anil
Kumar Goel and in furtherance of this conspiracy, he introduced Anil Kumar Goel
as a prospective traveler and obtained an air-ticket of Rs.43,000/- (Rupees Forty-
Three Thousand only) and foreign exchange worth around Rs.10,25,000/- (Rupees
Ten Lac and Twenty-Five Thousand only) on the basis of two forged banker
cheques. In order to given genuine colour to the transaction, accused Anil Kumar
Goel presented himself as the Managing Director of M/s A to Z International Pvt.
Ltd. and produced a letter issued by his company alongwith a certification from the
bank about the genuineness of banker cheque. The cheating came to light when the
forged banker cheques were returned back by the banker (Hedungadi Bank Ltd.,
Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, Delhi) of the company with information that the
same have been issued from a fictitious branch of State Bank of India. The matter
FIR No.662/1997 State Vs Anil Kumar Goel & Anr. Page 2 of 21
was reported to the police and on the basis of a written complaint lodged by the
company, present FIR bearing number 662/1997 under Section 420/468/471 IPC
read with Section 34 IPC was registered at PS Karol Bagh.
3. The prosecution' s case proceeds further that after registration of FIR,
on 12.11.1997, on the basis of a secret information, accused Anil Kumar Goel was
arrested from ISBT, New Delhi and from his possession, cash amount of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) was recovered. After arrest, accused made a
confession about his involvement and took the police party to the house of his
brother (Ashok Goel) at Pitampura from where further cash amount of Rs.
4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lac only) was recovered. The forged banker cheques were
seized and recovered cash was deposited at the Malkhana. Signatures of the
accused Anil Kumar Goel on the receipts of traveler' s cheques and the letter of A
to Z International Pvt. Ltd. (Ex. PW-1/A) were sent for comparison to the CFSL
which returned a finding that both the signatures were same. Statement of
witnesses were recorded and after completion of necessary formalities, charge
sheet was put to the court. Copies of the charge sheet were supplied to both the
accused and charges under Section 420/471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC were
framed against them and additional charge under Section 420 IPC was framed
against accused Anil Kumar Goel. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
Witnesses Examined
4. Eleven prosecution witnesses were examined.
Witnesses from the company
PW-1 J.S. Kohli (Manager of the Company) narrated the entire
episode. He stated the manner in which accused Anil Kumar Goel approached his
FIR No.662/1997 State Vs Anil Kumar Goel & Anr. Page 3 of 21
company and obtained air ticket and foreign currency. He mentioned about the role
of Anil Kumar Sharma stating that he introduced the co-accused Anil Kumar Goel.
PW-3 Jasbir Singh Sethi (Director of the company) stated that he was
looking after the ticketing department of the company. He mentioned that Anil
Kumar Sharma introduced the co-accused as a prospective traveler and an air ticket
was issued on the basis of a forged banker cheque of Rs.43,000/- (Rupees Forty
Three Thousand only). He mentioned about the second forged banker cheque of
Rs.10,25,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac Twenty-Five Thousand only) stating that it was
handed over by the co-accused Anil Kumar Goel for obtaining foreign currency.
Witness from Bank
PW-2 Raj Gopal (Manager from the bank of company) stated that
forged banker cheques were deposited in the account of the company. He disclosed
the details of those cheques mentioning that one of them was bearing No.207731
dated 23.10.1997 for an amount of Rs.43,000/- (Rupees Forty Three Thousand
only) issued in favour of M/s Travel In Style and the second one bearing No.
207729 dated 23.10.1997 for an amount of Rs. 10,25,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs and
Twenty Five Thousand only) issued in favour of M/s Sethi Brothers Pvt Ltd. He
mentioned that both the banker cheques were returned back on the ground that they
were issued from a fictitious non- existing branch of State Bank of India.
PW-5 Prabhash Chander Kudeshia (Dy. Vice President, Bank of
Punjab) deposed about the forged banker cheque given by the accused to Onkar
Leasing and Investment Company for obtaining traveler' s cheque worth around Rs.
9,07,000/- (Nine Lakhs & Seven Thousand only) in respect of which a separate FIR
was registered. He stated that it was found that the banker cheque was forged and it
was issued by a fictitious branch of State Bank of India.
FIR No.662/1997 State Vs Anil Kumar Goel & Anr. Page 4 of 21
Witnesses of investigation
PW-4 Inspector Jatinder Singh (Second Investigating Officer) deposed
about the investigation carried out by him. He mentioned about the arrest of
accused and the recovery effected at his instance. He stated that both the accused
were involved in a similar offence in respect of which FIR No.641/97 under
Section 420/467/471/120B IPC was registered at Police Station Karol Bagh. He
stated that accused cheated another company (M/s Onkar Leasing & Investment
Company) by adopted a similar modus operandi and FIR No.641/1997 was
registered in respect of the said offence.
PW-6 HC Dayanand (MHC-M) produced the sealed case property
including the articles recovered from the possession of accused Anil Kumar Goel.
He mentioned that pursuant to the orders of the court, the recovered amount of Rs.
5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lac only) was released to the victim companies.
PW-11 SI Kali Ram (Investigating Officer) justified the investigation
carried out by him.
Witness from Passport Office
PW-7 S.N. Nagar (Public Relation Officer, Passport Office) stated that
as per the record available at the office, the passport No.H-190389 was issued to
Anil Kumar Goel at the address KU-131, Pitampura, New Delhi while the address
given in the passport was KD-739, Pitampura, New Delhi.
Formal witnesses
PW-8 HC Randhir Singh (Duty Officer) mentioned about registration
of FIR. The copy of the FIR is Ex.PW-8/A.
PW-9 Ct. Suraj Bhan (Witness of arrest) stated that accused was
arrested and misappropriated amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) was
FIR No.662/1997 State Vs Anil Kumar Goel & Anr. Page 5 of 21
recovered from his possession. He also mentioned about the cash recovered from
the house of the brother of accused.
Witness from the hotel
PW-10 Vikas Kapoor (Manager of the Hotel where the accused stayed
a day prior to the incident) mentioned that accused Anil Kumar Goel was staying in
his hotel. He stated that accused told him that he would be requiring the services of
a travel agency for obtaining an air ticket and on his request, he took him to the
office of the company. He mentioned that accused Anil Kumar Sharma was present
at the office of the company but he did not introduce the co-accused Anil Kumar
Goel.
5. Separate statements of accused were recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C wherein they denied the allegations and stated that they have been falsely
implicated. Accused Anil Kumar Goel shifted the entire blame on a person named
Sunil Banjerjee who was kept in Column No.2 of the charge sheet. He mentioned
that it was Sunil Banjerjee who gave the banker cheque of Rs. 10.25 lakh to the
company. He seems to have suggested that he had no role in the entire transaction.
On the other hand, accused Anil Kumar Sharma mentioned that his employer was
keeping a grudge against him and in order to settle the score, he falsely implicated
him in the present case.
Arguments
6. I have heard Ld. APP for State as well as Ld. Defence Counsel and
carefully gone through the entire material available on record.
7. Ld. APP has argued that the prosecution' s case stands proved beyond
reasonable doubt. He contended that in case of criminal conspiracy, there is hardly
any possibility of bringing on record direct evidence. He argued that evidence
FIR No.662/1997 State Vs Anil Kumar Goel & Anr. Page 6 of 21
tendered during the trial leaves no scope for doubt that both the accused acted in
furtherance of criminal conspiracy and committed the alleged offences. He
contended that although there are minor contradictions in the testimony of
witnesses but the same are inconsequential. It was argued by him that invariably,
conspiracy is hatched behind closed doors and the possibility of obtaining direct
evidence is remote. He has prayed that both the accused should be convicted for
committing the alleged offences.
8. Countering the arguments of prosecution, Ld. Defence Counsels have
contended that prosecution has failed to establish its case. Counsel for the accused
Anil Kumar Goel mentioned that in fact, the accused himself is a victim who has
fallen prey to the illegal designs of Sunil Banerjee. He mentioned that investigation
was not carried out to find the role of Sunil Banjerjee and the charge sheet is
completely silent on this aspect. He stated that the requisite mens-rea on the part of
accused is missing. He argued that in case, accused intended to cheat the company
then, at the time of obtaining the foreign currency, he would not have given the
photocopy of his passport and this fact goes on to show that he had no intention to
cheat. He has placed reliance upon the judgment in " Uma Shankar Vs State of
Chattisgarh" 2001(2) JCC SCC 2015. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the
accused Anil Kumar Sharma argued that there is not even an iota of evidence
against this accused. He contended that even if the prosecution' s case is taken at its
best, still no case is made out against the accused. Counsel argued that at best, the
role attributed to the accused is that of an introducer and this fact, in itself, does not
substantiate the charge. He submitted that it would be grossly unfair to draw an
inference of conspiracy on the part of accused merely because he introduced a
person as a prospective traveler. He stated that as a usual business practice, the
FIR No.662/1997 State Vs Anil Kumar Goel & Anr. Page 7 of 21
company used to motivate its employees to get clients but the responsibility of
verifying the documents lied upon the company and not upon the employees. On
the force of these contentions, counsels have prayed that both the accused should
be acquitted.
Brief reasons for decision
9. I have perused the record in the light of respective arguments.
10. Both the accused have been charged with offences punishable under
Section 420/471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and independent charge under
Section 420 IPC was also framed against accused Anil Kumar Goel. The crucial
evidence is the testimony of officials of the company as well as the FSL report
submitted wherein it was mentioned that the signatures of accused Anil Kumar
Goel found on the receipts of traveler cheques (Ex.PW-3/5 to Ex.PW-3/7) tallied
with his signatures on the letter dated 23.10.1997 purportedly written on the letter
head of M/s A to Z International Pvt. Ltd. The FSL report confirmed that both the
documents were signed by the same person. The testimony of official from the
bank of the company and the person from the passport office is also relevant. The
evidence has to be appreciated to ascertain whether charges have been proved
against both the accused persons.
11. Section 471 IPC provides punishment for a person who fraudulently
or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or any electronic record which he
knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document. It further provides that, in
case, it is proved that a person has knowingly used a forged document as genuine,
then, he shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document.
Thus, as required under most of the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code,
there are two essential ingredients to commit the offence punishable under Section
FIR No.662/1997 State Vs Anil Kumar Goel & Anr. Page 8 of 21
471 IPC. The first ingredient is the actus part which means that a person must have
used a forged document as genuine and he must have done so fraudulently or
dishonestly. The second ingredient, which constitutes mens-rea, is that the person
using the forged document as genuine should either know or has reasons to believe
that the document is forged. It is only when these two ingredients have been proved
that it can be concluded that offence under Section 471 IPC has been committed.
12. On the other hand, Section 420 IPC provides punishment for the
offence of cheating. It states that whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces
the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or
destroy the whole or any part of valuable security, or anything which is signed or
sealed, and which is capable of being converted into valuable security, shall be
punished with imprisonment provided under the Section. The term ' cheating' has
been defined under Section 415 IPC. It provides that whoever, by deceiving any
person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any
property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or
intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he
would not do or omit if he was not so deceived, and which act for omission causes
or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or
property, is said to cheat.
13. Coming to the facts of the present case, it has been alleged that both
the accused cheated the company by presenting forged banker cheques and
obtaining an air ticket as well as foreign currency on the basis of those banker
cheques. In order to bring home a charge under Section 420 IPC, prosecution was
under an obligation to establish that accused dishonestly induced the company to
issue air ticket and foreign currency on the basis of forged banker cheques. In order
FIR No.662/1997 State Vs Anil Kumar Goel & Anr. Page 9 of 21
to establish this fact in issue, evidence was required to establish that accused
presented the forged banker cheques in the company. For establishing the dishonest
intention, knowledge of the accused that the banker cheques were forged was
crucial. In case, this fact in issue is established, then, it was called upon the
prosecution to establish that company was deceived and acting upon the deception,
company issued air tickets and foreign currency to the accused.
14. The facts as revealed from the charge-sheet and the statement of
witnesses are that there were two departments of the company. One of the
department was selling air tickets while the other department used to provide
foreign exchange to the travelers. It is the prosecution' s case that accused
purchased a return air ticket of British Airways from the company for travelling
from Delhi to London and this ticket was purchased by him on the basis of a forged
banker cheque (Ex.PW-1/E). It has been alleged that after purchasing this ticket,
accused again approached the company for obtaining foreign exchange and
managed to obtain foreign exchange on the basis of another forged banker cheque
of Rs.10,25,000/- (Ex.PW-1/C). The role attributed to the accused Anil Kumar
Sharma was that in furtherance of the common object of criminal conspiracy, he
introduced co-accused Anil Kumar Goel in both the departments of his company
and facilitated cheating.
15. In order to establish that accused came to the office of the company
and presented the forged banker cheques as genuine, the testimony of J.S.Kohli
(PW-1) and Jasbir Singh (PW-3) is relevant. In order to establish the fact in issue
that accused bought a return ticket for travelling from Delhi to London from the
office of company, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of Jasbir Singh
(PW-3) who was the Director of the company. He stated that accused Anil Kumar
FIR No.662/1997 State Vs Anil Kumar Goel & Anr. Page 10 of 21
Sharma used to work in the sales department of his company. He mentioned about
the air ticket issued by the company on the basis of forged banker cheque. He
stated that accused Anil Kumar Goel presented a banker cheque of Rs.43,000/-
(Rupees Forty Three Thousand only) and on his request, an air ticket of British
Airways was issued to him. He mentioned about the role of accused Anil Kumar
Sharma stating that he introduced the co-accused Anil Kumar Goel. J.S.Kohli
(PW-1) mentioned about the second forged banker cheque of Rs.10,25,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lac and Twenty Five Thousand only) and issuance of foreign
exchange to the accused Anil Kumar Goel. He stated that at the time of incident, he
used to work as a senior officer in the company. He mentioned the date of incident
and stated that on the said date, accused Anil Kumar Goel approached his company
for obtaining foreign exchange. He mentioned that this accused represented himself
as the Managing Director of M/s A to Z International Pvt. Ltd. and produced a
letter (Ex.PW-1/A) written on the letter-head of his company containing a request
for issuance of foreign currency. He mentioned that in order to demonstrate that he
was a traveler, accused showed his return air ticket of British Airways for
travelling from Delhi to London. He stated about the forged banker' s cheque
presented by the accused. He mentioned that accused gave a banker cheque of Rs.
10,25,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac and Twenty Five Thousand only) dated 23.10.1997
purportedly issued by SBI, Surya Niketan, Trans Yamuna Branch alongwith a
letter from the bank certifying that the banker cheque was issued from the account
of M/s A to Z International Pvt. Ltd. The said banker' s cheque is Ex.PW-1/C while
the letter is Ex.PW-1/D. Record shows that although, J.S.Kohli (PW-1) and Jasbir
Singh (PW-3) have been cross examined at length but their deposition that accused
Anil Kr. Goel came to their office and presented the banker cheques has remained
FIR No.662/1997 State Vs Anil Kumar Goel & Anr. Page 11 of 21
unblemished. These witnesses have mentioned that on the basis of forged banker
cheques, air ticket as well as foreign currency was given to the accused Anil Kumar
Goel. Their testimony establishes that the company acted upon the false
representation and issued air tickets and foreign currency. The testimony of these
witnesses is also relevant to establish that the banker cheques were forged.
16. J.S.Kohli (PW-1) stated that the banker cheque of Rs. 10,25,000/-
(Rupees Ten Lac and Twenty Five Thousand only) dated 23.10.1997 was
purportedly issued from SBI, 60 Surya Niketan, Trans Yumuna Branch. The
banker cheque of Rs.43,000/- (Rupees Forty Three Thousand only) was issued
from the same branch of SBI. Jasbir Singh (PW-3) stated that his company
deposited the banker cheque of Rs.43,000/- (Rupees Forty Three Thousand only)
with its banker i.e. Nedungadi Bank Ltd., Karol Bagh but the bank informed the
company that the cheque was forged. Similarly, J.S.Kohli has deposed about the
banker cheque of Rs.10,25,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac and Twenty Five Thousand
only) mentioning that on presentation, the banker cheque was found to be forged.
The letter issued by Nedungadi Bank Ltd. that the banker cheques were forged is
Mark-PW-1/AX3. Although, the original has not been produced but during the trial
of the second FIR bearing No.641/1997, PS Karol Bagh, PW-5 Sh. N.Nagaranjan,
Manager from State Bank of India, Service Branch, Parliament Street appeared and
deposed that there was no branch of SBI at 60, Surya Niketan, Trans Yamuna.
From the inception of trial, both the cases were being taken up together. In these
circumstances, judicial notice of the evidence which came in the trial of connected
case FIR bearing No.641/1997 can be taken. It is established that the banker
cheques were forged.
17. In so far as the actus part is concerned, there is absolutely no doubt
FIR No.662/1997 State Vs Anil Kumar Goel & Anr. Page 12 of 21
that the same has been established beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence on
record has established that accused Anil Kumar Goel went to the office of the
company and procured an air ticket as well as foreign currency on the basis of two
forged banker cheque. The witnesses from the company have identified the accused
in the court mentioning in detail the manner in which he practiced deception upon
the company. Ld. Defence Counsel has vehemently argued that even though, the
actus part has been proved but there is no evidence to establish that accused did the
act with the requisite criminal intention. He argued that the law only punishes a
criminal mind and accused can not be convicted unless there is material to
demonstrate that he did the act with a criminal intention. In order to support this
argument, counsel has pointed out that accused handed over the copy of his valid
passport to the company. He mentioned that in case, accused had the criminal
intention to commit the offence, then, he would not have presented his valid
passport to the company. He has argued that this circumstance support the defence
of accused that he himself was a victim who was unaware that the banker cheques
were forged. On appreciating the record, I do not find force in the said argument.
18. There can hardly be any direct evidence to demonstrate the criminal
intention for commission of the offence. The intention has to be inferred/gathered
from the totality of circumstances. The manner in which the accused conducts
himself at the time of commission of offence and his behavior after commission of
the offence are relevant factors that are to be looked into to arrive at a finding about
the criminal intention i.e. mens-rea. The testimony of witnesses demonstrates that
accused Anil Kumar Goel portrayed himself as a traveler and obtained an air ticket
on the basis of a forged banker cheque of Rs.43,000/- (Rupees Forty Three
Thousand only). At the time of approaching the company for obtaining foreign
FIR No.662/1997 State Vs Anil Kumar Goel & Anr. Page 13 of 21
exchange, he not only presented a forged banker cheque of Rs.10,25,000/- (Rupees
Ten Lac Twenty-Five Thousand only) but also supported his claim by submitting a
forged letter (PW-1/A) purportedly issued by M/s A to Z International Pvt. Ltd.
Perusal of this letter shows that accused signed it showing himself to be the
Managing Director of this company. In order to convince the company about the
authenticity of forged banker cheque of Rs.10,25,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac Twenty-
Five Thousand only), accused went a step ahead and presented a forged letter on
the letter-head of the fictitious bank wherein it was mentioned that the banker
cheque was issued from the bank account of M/s A to Z International. The said
letter (Ex.PW-1/D) as well as the letter (Ex.PW-1/A) demonstrate that accused
ensured that the company gets convinced and issues him the foreign exchange
against forged banker cheque. These circumstances clearly point towards the
culpability of accused.
19. At the time of issuing foreign currency, certain receipts were signed
by the accused. Jasbir Singh (PW-3) identified the receipts (Ex.PW-3/5, Ex.PW-3/6
& Ex.PW-3/7) stating that the same were issued by his company and the amount of
traveler cheques issued to the accused was mentioned therein. The CFSL returned a
finding that the signatures of the accused which were obtained at the time of
issuance of foreign currency on sale receipts (Ex.PW-3/5, Ex.3/6 & Ex.3/7) tallied
with his signatures on the letter of M/s A to Z International Pvt. Ltd. The report is
admissible in evidence under Section 292 Cr.P.C and even otherwise, the
authenticity of the said report has not been disputed during trial. The said report
further fortifies the prosecution' s case that foreign currency was issued to the
accused against forged banker cheque.
20. Much reliance has been placed by the defence counsel on the aspect
FIR No.662/1997 State Vs Anil Kumar Goel & Anr. Page 14 of 21
that at the time of procuring foreign currency, accused presented his genuine
passport to the company. S.N.Nagar (PW-7), Public Relation Officer from Patiala
House stepped into the witness box and stated that the passport was issued to
accused Anil Kumar Goel resident of KU-131, Pitampura, Delhi and the address as
given in the passport was KD-739, Pitampura, Delhi and the number of the
passport was H190389. He admitted in his cross examination that he had not seen
the original record in respect of the passport issued to the accused Anil Kumar
Goel. He stated that the original record of the passport was lying in the Regional
Passport Office located at Bikaji Kama Palace, New Delhi. The original record was
not produced during the trial. Although, it has been mentioned in the letter dated
14.01.1998written by the Superintendent, Regional Passport Officer, Delhi that the passport No.H-190389 was issued to the accused and his address is KU-131, Pitampura, New Delhi but the said document has not been proved. Neither the writer of the document was examined nor the record was produced. The letter was addressed to the Investigating Officer but he remained absolutely silent about receiving any such letter. In these circumstances, there is no material to conclude that at the time of taking the foreign currency, accused submitted copy of his genuine passport with the company. Even otherwise, this fact itself is not a mitigating circumstance when there is overwhelming evidence to prove that accused committed the act with the requisite criminal intention.
21. The fact proved on record leaves no scope for doubt that accused committed the offence with the criminal intention to cheat the company. He represented himself to be a traveler and obtained an air ticket on the basis of a forged banker cheque. Thereafter, he approached the company with a request to obtain foreign currency. In order to convince the company about his genuineness, FIR No.662/1997 State Vs Anil Kumar Goel & Anr. Page 15 of 21 accused presented a forged letter heard showing himself to be the Director of M/s A to Z International Pvt. Ltd. He also produced a forged letter purportedly written by the Branch Manager of the fictitious bank wherein it was mentioned that the banker cheque of Rs.10,25,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac Twenty-Five Thousand only) was issued from the account of his company. After obtaining the air ticket and the banker cheque, accused disappeared and he was finally apprehended on the basis of a secret information on 12.11.1997 from ISBT, Delhi. These circumstances demonstrate that accused committed the act with a criminal intention to cheat the company. CFSL has returned a finding that the signatures found on the sale receipts which were signed by the accused at the time of obtaining the foreign currency tallied with the signatures found on the letter (Ex.PW-1/A) of M/s A to Z International Pvt. Ltd. In the sale receipts, the address of the accused has been mentioned as KO-739, Pitampura, New Delhi. This fact does suggest that at the time of obtaining the foreign currency, the accused must have disclosed this address to the sales staff of the company who prepared the sale receipts. Thus, the accused did not disclose his correct address to the sales executive. It further goes on to show that accused was having the requisite criminal intention and because of that he deliberately did not disclose his correct address. The accused cheated the company and used forged banker cheques and supporting documents as genuine. I have no hesitation in my mind to hold the accused guilty of committing offences punishable under Section 420/471 IPC. However, the evidence is not sufficient to record a finding of guilty qua accused Anil Kumar Sharma.
22. It is the prosecution' s case that accused Anil Kumar Sharma entered into a criminal conspiracy with co-accused Anil Kumar Goel. It was argued by the Ld. APP that the evidence on record is to be appreciated by keeping in mind the FIR No.662/1997 State Vs Anil Kumar Goel & Anr. Page 16 of 21 observation made by the Hon' ble Supreme Court in " Kehar Singh & Ors. Vs State (Delhi Administration)" 1988 AIR 1883 wherein it was observed that conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. It was observed in this case that direct independent evidence of criminal conspiracy is generally not available and its evidence is a matter of inference. The inference are normally deduced from the act of the parties in pursuance of a purpose in common between the conspirators. It is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the date of formation of criminal conspiracy or about the person who took part in the formation of conspiracy or about the object which the objectors set before themselves as the object of conspiracy or about the manner in which the object of conspiracy is to be carried out. All this is necessarily a matter of inference. It was observed that to show the conspiracy, the circumstances before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide the complicity of accused persons. Reliance in this regard has also been place on the judgment of " Ram Narayan Popli Vs CBI & Ors." 2003 AIR SCC 2748.
23. I have gone through the judgments. In order to establish the involvement of accused Anil Kumar Sharma, the prosecution has built up its case on the aspect that he introduced the co-accused Anil Kumar Goel as a prospective client and by giving this introduction, he facilitated the offence of cheating. Let us peruse the record to see whether this circumstance has been proved and in case, it has been proved, can it be taken as an evidence of involvement of this accused ? It has been the line of argument of defence that there is no evidence to establish that accused Anil Kumar Sharma introduced the co-accused Anil Kumar Goel. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that even if it is presumed that the accused introduced FIR No.662/1997 State Vs Anil Kumar Goel & Anr. Page 17 of 21 the co-accused, still this fact, in itself does not lead to the conclusion that accused entered into the criminal conspiracy.
24. In order to establish the fact that accused introduced accused Anil Kumar Goel, prosecution has relied upon the testimony of witnesses from the company but the testimony of these witnesses is not convincing. J.S.Kohli (PW-1) did not whisper even a word against the accused Anil Kumar Sharma except a single statement at the end of his testimony that Anil Kumar Goel was introduced in the company by Anil Kumar Sharma. Jasbir Singh (PW-3) stated that accused Anil Kumar Sharma used to work in the sales department of the company and he introduced Anil Kumar Goel. He mentioned that Anil Kumar Sharma disclosed that accused Anil Kumar Goel intends to visit London on the same night. He stated in his cross examination that the company does not keep record of introducer in every deal and there is no documentary evidence to demonstrate that accused Anil Kumar Sharma introduced Anil Kumar Goel. He stated that at the time of incident, he was working in the ticketing department of the company and he was not directly involved in the work of the department dealing with foreign currency. He stated that as a usual practice, the company often refers clients to other agencies when there is shortage of foreign currency but in the said dealing, the company can not be held liable, in case, the customer commits fraud. He stated that it is the duty of referred agency to verify the documents of the customer before issuing foreign currency. After appreciating the testimony of these witnesses, I have reached a conclusion that their testimony can not be taken as a conclusive proof of the fact that accused Anil Kumar Sharma was part of the criminal conspiracy.
25. Record shows that one of the prosecution witnesses has contradicted the version of witnesses from the company. Vikas Kapoor (PW-10) was the owner FIR No.662/1997 State Vs Anil Kumar Goel & Anr. Page 18 of 21 of the guest house where accused Anil Kumar Goel stayed on the previous night of the alleged incident. He stated that on 22.10.1997, accused Anil Kumar Goel came to his hotel and told him that he requires an air ticket and traveler cheques for travelling to London. He mentioned that on the next morning, he took the accused to the office of the company where J.S.Kohli (PW-1) met them. He stated that at that time, Anil Kumar Sharma was also present in the office and on the directions of J.S.Kohli, he checked the documents of Anil Kumar Goel. He categorically admitted in his cross examination that accused Anil Kumar Sharma did not introduce accused Anil Kumar Goel in the company. The testimony of this witness has raised serious doubts over the version of witnesses from the company that accused Anil Kumar Goel was introduced by Anil Kumar Sharma.
26. The argument of the defence counsel that introduction in itself is not a conclusive proof of criminal conspiracy is convincing. At best, the prosecution has established that accused Anil Kumar Sharma introduced Anil Kumar Goel in his company as a prospective client. Nothing beyond that has been established. It has been held by the Hon' ble Supreme Court in " State Vs V.C.Shukla" AIR 1980 SCC 1382 that in order to prove criminal conspiracy, there must be direct or circumstantial evidence to show that there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offence and it is the requirement that there must be meeting of mind resulting in an ultimate decision taken by conspirator regarding the commission of offence. It was held that conspiracy can be inferred from the circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement. It was held in " Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru" AIR 2005 SC 3820 that a few bits here and a few bits there on which the prosecution relies can not be held to be adequate for connecting the accused in the offence of criminal conspiracy. The FIR No.662/1997 State Vs Anil Kumar Goel & Anr. Page 19 of 21 circumstances before, during and after the occurrence and antecedents and subsequent conduct among other factor can be proved to decided about the complicity of accused. The cumulative effect of proved circumstances should be taken into account in determining the guilt of accused rather than adopting an isolated approach to each of the circumstance. It was held in regard to the appreciation of evidence relating to conspiracy that the court must take care to see that the acts or conduct of the parties must be conscious and clear enough to infer their concurrence as to the common design and its execution.
27. On evaluating the evidence in the light of the above stated settled preposition of law, it is apparent that the evidence on record is insufficient to conclude that accused Anil Kumar Sharma was part of the criminal conspiracy. It is not the prosecution' s case that this accused was assigned the task of checking the documents of prospective clients or that he submitted a false report in respect of those documents. In such circumstances, it would be grossly unfair to convict the accused on the charge of criminal conspiracy merely on the ground that he introduced the co-accused in his company. Moreover, as discussed in the preceding paras, even the evidence on introduction is not convincing. In order to record a finding of conviction, all the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully and cogently established. All the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of accused. They should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. The circumstances must be satisfactorily established and the proved circumstances must bring home the offence of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case, prosecution has failed to establish unbroken chain of events suggesting the involvement of accused Anil Kumar Sharma. Although, he was working with the FIR No.662/1997 State Vs Anil Kumar Goel & Anr. Page 20 of 21 company and might have introduced co-accused in his company for the air ticket and foreign currency but this isolated act does not establish his involvement. On the other hand, charges against the accused Anil Kumar Goel stand proved.
28. In view of the discussions made in the afore-stated paras, accused Anil Kumar Sharma stands acquitted from the charges under Section 420/471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC while accused Anil Kumar Goel stands convicted for committing offences punishable under Section 420/471 IPC.
29. Be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in open Court (SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK)
on 21.04.2015 ACMM-01, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
It is certified that this judgment contains Twenty-One (21) pages and each page bears my signatures.
(SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK) ACMM-01, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR No.662/1997 State Vs Anil Kumar Goel & Anr. Page 21 of 21